CAT/C/51/D/441/2010 entered into force within appeal/cassation proceedings. Consequently, the complainant or his lawyers could and still can challenge the judgment of the court before the Supreme Court. Under article 464 of the code, following a preliminary examination, the court adopts a decision either on the initiation of supervisory review proceedings or on their refusal, or to return the complaint. In this regard, it points out that such a decision is adopted collegially by three judges and not by the Chair of the Supreme Court. As to the complainant’s argument that submitting a complaint to the Supreme Court within the supervisory proceedings would have been in vain, as D.T,’s request was unsuccessful, the State party observes that each complaint regarding supervisory proceedings is examined separately without consideration of the outcome of other examinations. Moreover, even if the complainant was referred to as a “convict” by a Supreme Court judge, nothing indicated that he was prevented from submitting a complaint within the supervisory proceedings. In addition, the State party disagrees that submitting a complaint to the Supreme Court would have been an ineffective remedy. It points out that in 2010, 48 persons were acquitted in the framework of the supervisory review proceedings, while during the first half of 2011, 13 persons were acquitted. 6.7 The State party adds that the domestic investigation met the requirements of promptness, independence, impartiality, thoroughness and effectiveness, as required by the Convention. The investigation was carried out in accordance with national legislation. The preliminary examination of the complainant’s claims of torture was later examined by a prosecutor. The prosecutor found the complainant’s allegations groundless. In this connection, the State party notes that neither the complainant nor his lawyers appealed against this decision. In any case, the very fact that the Prosecutor’s Office refused to initiate criminal proceedings concerning the complainant’s claims of torture does not demonstrate that his complaint was not examined objectively. Furthermore, all investigative actions within the pretrial investigation were carried out in the presence of the complainant’s lawyer and all evidence was obtained in accordance with national law. Forensic medical examinations were performed on the complainant, the results of which did not demonstrate that the complainant had been subjected to torture. The State party points out that according to forensic examination report No. 2416 of 19 December 2008, in which his handwriting was examined, it could not be established that the complainant’s written confessions were made under any extraordinary circumstances and nothing indicated that he had written that statement while being in an extraordinary psychological state. The State party believes that the complainant’s allegations that he had been subjected to torture constituted a defence strategy aimed at obstructing the investigation of the crimes he had been accused of. 6.8 The State party also points out that the results of the internal investigation concerning the complainant’s allegations of torture were examined, inter alia, by the court of first instance. During the trial, the forensic medical experts confirmed that they had not received any complaints from the complainant regarding his alleged ill-treatment by the police and confirmed that he had no injuries. The State party also notes that during the trial, law enforcement officers and experts who had examined the complainant were questioned regarding his allegations. It adds that the appeal court also examined the complainant’s allegations, but found them unjustified. In this connection, it recalls that the courts are independent and guided only by the constitution and the laws and that the complainant’s case was adjudicated in accordance with these principles. The State party also notes that the complainant was not present when his appeal was examined, pursuant to article 408, para. 2, of the criminal procedure code. However, he was duly represented by a lawyer. 6.9 It further explains the procedure for submitting complaints concerning decisions and actions of the investigator, prosecutor, court or judge as set out under articles 103 and 109 of the criminal procedure code. It points out that pursuant to article 105 of the code, complaints about decisions or actions of investigators are to be submitted to the prosecutor 10